×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dutch Pirate Party Dragging BREIN To Court

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the it's-on dept.

Censorship 123

An anonymous reader writes "Last week the Dutch Pirate Party refused to take down their proxy. Then, avoiding the Pirate Party in court, the entertainment industry organization BREIN obtained an injunction against the party's The Pirate Bay proxy (now a list of alternative proxies). After receiving additional demands from BREIN on Saturday night, including one to censor their generic proxy, the Dutch Pirate Party decided to take them to court, to strike the order and convince the judge of the need for due process and the freedom to inform." From the press release: "The penalties imposed by the court are 4 times higher than those ordered upon the large commercial ISPs XS4ALL and Ziggo..."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

123 comments

Loophole (4)

funtapaz (1406785) | about 2 years ago | (#39699817)

As much as I like to see this kind of "stick it to the man" attitude, this is merely the exploitation of a loophole. This will not last. I'll be very interested in seeing what they come up with next though.

Re:Loophole (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#39699929)

As much as I like to see this kind of "stick it to the man" attitude, this is merely the exploitation of a loophole. This will not last. I'll be very interested in seeing what they come up with next though.

Personally I would suggest "The Pirate Browser" essentially TorBrowser configured to use a SE exit node and TPB as the home page. With the move to magnet links it really shouldn't be that much of a strain on the network and it'd be pretty damn big to block the entire TOR network... also the Pirate Party has recently been polling at >10% in Germany, if they can keep this up or increase more to the election next year this will get *really* interesting.

It's the 80s all over again (5, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#39700805)

The older geeks here might remember. Back in the 80s, our politicians didn't give half a shit about environment. The forest died, they ignored it. People protested, they ignored it. All because the industry was fearmongering that any environmental laws would threaten "Germany as an industry location". The sky was falling, companies were supposed to leave Germany in droves if laws were passed that dared to order filters for the pests they pumped into our environment.

And behold, a party came into existence that had very few agendas safe one: Environment. And the second time they stood in elections, they gained a few seats in the parliament. And it grew because the established parties continued to ignore the issue. And what a joke that party was! People who didn't have a clue about politics, or so it seemed, they came in jeans instead of suits and didn't know how to "behave". And the longer they were ignored, the bigger the party got.

30 years later the Greens are an established force in pretty much every parliament in Europe. In some countries they are or were already part of the government. The "big players" now have to deal with another party that siphons votes away from them, and as much as they'd love to, they can't really get rid of them anymore. The Greens became part of the political landscape in Europe.

History repeats itself now. The issue now is privacy instead of environment, but the cards are played exactly the same way. Privacy is eliminated and ignored by the established parties, despite protests, citing the threat of losing jobs in the entertainment industry if we don't eliminate freedom and the right to privacy. People don't like that, or even oppose it to the extreme. And a party is formed that you actually know very little of besides one thing: It opposes this.

And if the established parties continue to ignore what people actually want from them, they'll soon have to deal with yet another party sitting around in parliament cutting into their share of the cake. I cannot help but wish for history to repeat itself.

Re:It's the 80s all over again (3, Insightful)

Rob Riggs (6418) | about 2 years ago | (#39701647)

Unfortunately we're not allowed to have a green party in the U.S. Nor are we allowed to have a pirate party. You either vote for the party of Big Business and Deficit Spending or you vote for the party of Deficit Spending and Big Business.

Hey, at least it's a democracy!

Re:It's the 80s all over again (2)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#39702735)

Is this the story which environmentalists tell themselves? This sounds ridiculous. Where's the dissent? As we all know, dissent is a healthy part of any debate. How about telling us the part about receiving, with full knowledge, funding from the Soviet Union? It's morally equivalent as taking funding from Khadaffy or Christians.

Re:It's the 80s all over again (1)

steelfood (895457) | about 2 years ago | (#39704823)

You guys are lucky you have a functioning democracy.

Some of us are not nearly as lucky, as we live under one in name only. We're also louder about being one than everyone else despite being otherwise (can you hazard a guess as to why?).

Re:It's the 80s all over again (1)

VomitInc (941517) | about 2 years ago | (#39705061)

Interesting to take the green example. Over here in Flanders the founding father of the Green party lamented more than a decade ago that his movement has been hijacked by extreme left activists to push their red agenda under the green flag. This week I read an article about the consolidated international pirate party. http://xandernieuws.punt.nl/?id=657895&r=1&tbl_archief [xandernieuws.punt.nl] Mixed with the free copying issue, which I would support, there were all sorts of neomarxist, anticapitalist and drug legalization agenda points. These varied from the mandatory left mantra of "open borders" and "free unemployment handouts, no work ethic required", even going as far as "legalize incest" http://www.piratenpartei.de/2012/04/13/piratenpartei-lehnt-inzestverbot-ab/ [piratenpartei.de] . Unfortunately, now they have left me no other option than to strongly oppose them, not because of the original founding ideal, but because of the unsavory red star package deal they have gotten themselves into. To put in to torrent terminology, there's some nasty left-wing spyware hitching along with the installer. Sad, really.

Re:It's the 80s all over again (2)

nukenerd (172703) | about 2 years ago | (#39705229)

...... behold, a party came into existence that had very few agendas safe one: Environment. And the second time they stood in elections, they gained a few seats in the parliament. And it grew because the established parties continued to ignore the issue.

30 years later the Greens are an established force in pretty much every parliament in Europe..... The Greens became part of the political landscape in Europe.

The Greens have only become serious politically because they ceased to be "green" and became just another socialist group. That happened when they dropped their target of reducing population numbers (in case it caused "misunderstanding").

In reality very few people, whether politicians or Joe Public, give a toss about the environment; or rather they define "The Environment" as something important to themselves, such as the presence or otherwise of something they have a personal issue or paranoia about, like food preservatives or background radiation. When "travellers" moved into a field by my town, the nearby residents suddenly became very "concerned" that the field might have some industrial waste in it, so the travellers should be moved on "for their own safety". That is the nature of most people's "concern" about the environment - to suit themselves.

That is not to say that posing and gesturing as being "Green" is not highly fashionable right now, such as my finding the instruction manual for my new $1000 camera looks like it is printed on toilet paper - and tells me on the cover that I should re-cycle it. Yet I see free magazines on better paper handed out and tossed away daily, by the ton.

I don't understand... (5, Informative)

ninjaadmin (896197) | about 2 years ago | (#39699831)

How can you be forced to "take down" a pointer? Not only is tpb not hosting anything but pointers... but the proxy is just a pointer to a pointer... *boggle*

Re:I don't understand... (5, Funny)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | about 2 years ago | (#39699873)

If pointers are the hardest thing to learn in C++ for CS students just think how hard it is for brainless morons.

Re:I don't understand... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39699999)

Please point to the source, or what's the point of pointing this out if it's not just your point of view?

Re:I don't understand... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39700011)

If pointers are the hardest thing to learn in C++ for CS students just think how hard it is for brainless morons.

It's been my experience that quite a few CS students these days are in fact brainless morons so I think I have a fair idea.

Re:I don't understand... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39700083)

May I remain on your lawn, sir?

Re:I don't understand... (4, Funny)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 2 years ago | (#39700155)

Hey, don't knock pointers. I had a friend who got a semester's worth of lap dances for extra tutoring in pointers... :)

Re:I don't understand... (2)

kyrio (1091003) | about 2 years ago | (#39700241)

It's a good thing your male friend is interested in getting lap dances from other men.

Re:I don't understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39700517)

This is what happens when idiots try to use pointers before they know what they are. Or even how to program for that matter....

Re:I don't understand... (3, Insightful)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about 2 years ago | (#39700829)

Yo Dog, I heard you like pointers so I put a pointer in your pointer and.... hey wait that actually works!

Re:I don't understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39701609)

void* p;
p=&p;

Re:I don't understand... (4, Interesting)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#39699895)

What is really going to help is that the judge refused to listen to any arguments before issuing a judgement. It will be struck down, but this is only the beginning.

Re:I don't understand... (4, Interesting)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#39700051)

What is really going to help is that the judge refused to listen to any arguments before issuing a judgement. It will be struck down, but this is only the beginning.

That depends on how corrupt and greedy the local legal system is. Here in the US, judges pass judgement all the damn time without caring for additional arguments. Spend a day listening to people fight unfair/unjust traffic citations and you'll quickly see that.

Re:I don't understand... (1)

sosume (680416) | about 2 years ago | (#39700323)

A judge in the US wouldn't dare issueing an ex-parte injunction against a political party.. aren't there international treaties against such abuse?

Re:I don't understand... (1)

Rasperin (1034758) | about 2 years ago | (#39701175)

A judge in the US wouldn't dare issueing an ex-parte injunction against a US political party.. but international political parties are fair game, because they aren't the great and all-mighty US.

FTFY

Re:I don't understand... (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 2 years ago | (#39700367)

Or the open hostility some of the judiciary has shown in the various Obamacare lawsuits...

As someone that's been watching the members of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court literally come to blows [dailykos.com] over partisan bickering, I have absolutely no doubt that many of the cases coming before the courts in this country are decided based solely on who the involved parties are or the political ramifications of a decision, regardless of the arguments.

Re:I don't understand... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39699897)

How can you be forced to "take down" a pointer? Not only is tpb not hosting anything but pointers... but the proxy is just a pointer to a pointer... *boggle*

It is circumventing a court order, therefore it must be shut down. If magic wishes allowed to circumvent the censorship they would try to ban magic. Reason is not something that courts understand; they are dumb fucks applying dumb laws for no reason other that it's the law.

Re:I don't understand... (4, Insightful)

cdp0 (1979036) | about 2 years ago | (#39699973)

Anything that may hurt the profits of some ridiculously rich individuals can and will be blocked. It's as simple as that. Our freedom ends where their profit starts.

Re:I don't understand... (4, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#39700063)

Anything that may hurt the profits of some ridiculously rich individuals can and will be blocked. It's as simple as that. Our freedom ends where their profit starts.

So, what is the point of a legal system then, or is it simply more of a charade to continue the illusion that we little poor bottom feeders actually still have a say in the matter...

Re:I don't understand... (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#39700405)

Yeah basically that. The rich can hire the expertise and change the rules to stay out of court in the first place.

Re:I don't understand... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39700343)

Bullshit; a proxy doesn't "point" you to the content, in either the computer programming sense or any common English sense, by definition it fetches the content on your behalf and retransmits it to you. (And yet, you got modded to +4 so far. Why am I not surprised...)

If one had to force a computer programming metaphor on it, a getter (aka accessor) would be more appropriate. But this is /., so we really should be using a bad car analogy instead; I await suggestions.

So it's a pointer, then. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39700611)

It doesn't actually CONTAIN the content, but merely a location to GET the content.

It points to the content, not the content itself.

A pointer.

filth (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39699883)

Pirate Party = anti-civilization scum.

Tug-of-war (3, Insightful)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#39699887)

This is how it works in a liberal democracy. The side with the most people wins. Donate now to your favorite free speech or pirate cause, because that money is needed to buy more lobbyists, TV spots and print ads than the opposition.

Re:Tug-of-war (5, Informative)

MisterMidi (1119653) | about 2 years ago | (#39700097)

Except that here in the Netherlands we don't have a liberal democracy, we have a constitutional parliamentary monarchy. In theory the side with most people wins, but in practice it's always a coalition between parties and no single party gets the power.

Re:Tug-of-war (3, Insightful)

gstrickler (920733) | about 2 years ago | (#39700101)

This is why republics are superior to democracies. Democracy is tyranny of the people. A republic is governed by rule of law, a democracy is governed by the fickle will of the masses.

Re:Tug-of-war (5, Insightful)

r_a_trip (612314) | about 2 years ago | (#39700143)

A republic is governed by rule of law Who gets to make the laws? I guess those are the republic's tyrants...

Re:Tug-of-war (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#39700383)

Exactly, the concept of a republic is like well-meaning DRM, and once it's cracked you're left with a plain old oligarchy...

Re:Tug-of-war (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 2 years ago | (#39701211)

Noo. A republic is a form of government with a non-monarch as the head of state.

Democracy is NOT a form of government but a philosophy of power. Most republics at least on paper pretends to be democracies, as in the power ultimately derives from the people. The key word here being ultimately, there can be several levels of indirection.

Re:Tug-of-war (1)

gstrickler (920733) | about 2 years ago | (#39702013)

You should read the definitions of republic [reference.com] and democracy [reference.com]. You might find them informative.

Democratic republics are the best form of government yet tried. But pure democracy is impractical when you have hundreds of thousands of citizens.

Re:Tug-of-war (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#39702123)

The key word here being ultimately, there can be several levels of misdirection.

FTFY

Re:Tug-of-war (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39701581)

Yeah, a republic is 'superior' to a democracy because it allows fewer people to control power and thus makes them easier to bribe.

IE "Fiat by minority rule."

@$#@ "Republics."

Re:Tug-of-war (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#39700249)

Donate now to your favorite free speech or pirate cause, because that money is needed to buy more lobbyists

You are confusing democracy with plutocracy. A common mistake nowadays...

Board members name from FTA: (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39699905)

“It is time that the industry attack dogs understand that you can’t trample on people’s freedoms for your own monetary gain,” Pirate Party board member blauwbaard says.

Yep, blauwbaard. I thought blackbeard was a pirate, and bluebeard was a serial killing landlubber, but either way -- do you really wanna fuck with these guys?

Re:Board members name from FTA: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39699995)

Yep, blauwbaard. I thought blackbeard was a pirate, and bluebeard was a serial killing landlubber, but either way -- do you really wanna fuck with these guys?

As a hot girl with a fetish for facial hairs, I'd say yes, of course!

Re:Board members name from FTA: (1)

JosKarith (757063) | about 2 years ago | (#39700157)

"As a MAN POSING AS A hot girl with a fetish for facial hairs, I'd say yes, of course!"
TFTFY - we all know there's no girls on the internet.

Re:Board members name from FTA: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39700459)

There's plenty of girls on the internet. It's just that they often don't know it themselves.

How DARE you!! (5, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#39699907)

The entertainment industry spent good money to buy those courts, and you DARE to presume you can just come in with no money and use them AGAINST their benefactors?!?!?

I say good day to you, sir! GOOD DAY, SIR!

Bad summary, yet again: Edit ! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39699915)

"The penalties imposed by the court". On whom ? For what ?!

Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake... (5, Insightful)

dryriver (1010635) | about 2 years ago | (#39699991)

Instead of pioneering new, convenient, usable digital ways to distribute content (like free, ad-supported internet streaming of standard-def content over, say, Youtube or Vimeo), the Entertainment industry seems determined to forcibly shut down any alternative, ad-hoc digital distribution means that has sprung up (like P2P & Torrents). Lets suppose for a moment that the Entertainment Industry manages to shut it all down for good... All of it. Really ALL OF IT. No more ways to get free dl links, free movie streaming, or any other way left to download/view Hollywood content online without paying. Will the industry's sales and profits suddenly go up? Perhaps by a measly few percent (say 2 - 4%), as some of the people who used to get stuff free off the internet now grudgingly head to the entertainment store to buy a DVD or BluRay instead, or buy a few movies/shows on iTunes-like online services. But what about the people who really used to love using Torrents and such? They will very likely stop consuming Hollywood movies/U.S. TV Shows/MPAA-RIAA content altogether. Can you live without consuming this stuff at all? Yes, you very much can. Do you miss out on anything doing this? Only if you are a 14 year old teenager who thinks that to be "hip" or "in the loop", you need to see the latest incarnation of the Hollywood trash all your friends at school are talking about. ---- With its latest actions, the Entertainment Industry has proven once more that it is composed of "9 Parts Business/Industry" and "1 Part Entertainment". It has also proven that it lives decades in the past, business-model wise, and that it simply cannot make effective use of the internet as a means of distribution. The likely result of all this? The generation that grew up with P2P and Torrents will probably hate Hollywood/MPAA/RIAA for the rest of their lives, and likely consume as little Hollywood/U.S. made content as possible. It will probably do this just to hurt the MPAA/RIAA back.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (-1, Flamebait)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#39700123)

...But what about the people who really used to love using Torrents and such? They will very likely stop consuming Hollywood movies/U.S. TV Shows/MPAA-RIAA content altogether...

Oh, so you mean that somehow the RIAA/MPAA should be concerned about the thieves (not even gonna try and mince words here) who "love using Torrents and such", that steal all their content for free is going to now be suddenly worried about losing...that ZERO-profit section of their consumer base?

Gee, I can see they're really shaking in their boots over that one. All hands on deck for an emergency board meeting to discuss how we're going to deal with "customers" who weren't paying a dime before that are not going to pay a dime in the future...

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

r_a_trip (612314) | about 2 years ago | (#39700231)

Except there are ample DVD's and BluRay's in my home that would most probably haven't been bought, had I not downloaded the movie (which is still legal in The Netherlands) first to see if I like it.

No "preview", far less sales. Two sides of a coin....

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

MisterMidi (1119653) | about 2 years ago | (#39700515)

Well, far less... Not for people like me. For me, most movies are not worth it to watch a second time, let alone buy a dvd. Instead, I'll just watch what's on tv, borrow some dvds or pirate it.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

kwark (512736) | about 2 years ago | (#39702057)

I guess you are a minority, nobody I know buys stuff after downloading and why should I, dvds are a relic of the past (not in HD), blurays to restrictive. Sure stuff gets bought, but only things I can't get/find any other way.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39702219)

You are part of an extremely tiny monority. Once again, the plural Of anecdote is not evidence.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39700285)

Yeah, except that i won't be going to see the band I didn't discovered through torrent because i couldn't afford (or even find) the cd's, nor going to see the crappy 8th secuel of a movie because I couldn't watch the previous ones when they were on the cinema, and couldn't rent afterwards because there isn't any place nearby (or online) where i can watch them at a reasonable price/quality ratio.

It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of control. The 10 companies that control most of the movie and music industries are used to controlling what culture we have access to, through radio, cinemas and stores. The end battle is not fighting piracy, but regaining control of the distribution methods. They are fricking scared that anyone in their backyards can create a movie and distribute it to the world without their consent and control.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#39700289)

2/5 - Not believable enough that you would go so far as to put all the "trigger" words among your target audience in bold.

That said...

Oh, so you mean that somehow the RIAA/MPAA should be concerned about the thieves (not even gonna try and mince words here) who "love using Torrents and such", that steal all their content for free is going to now be suddenly worried about losing...that ZERO-profit section of their consumer base?

Yes, they should - Because this entire discussion misses the simple fact that the "audience" refers to the product, not the customers. the fact that the studios can get the cows to produce a bit of milk before taking them to slaughter (and yes, pedants, I realize you don't generally eat dairy cows) just frosts the cake.

With TV, they made that fact glaringly obvious by having well-delineated commercial breaks. With movies, they simply make the ads more subtle, part of the actual content (or did you actually take "Transformers: Dark Side of GM Product Placement" as anything more than a feature-length ad? Not that that differs from the original in any way, since the cartoon existed only to hawk crappy toys, mind you).

You know, I don't want to watch ads for free. I would say the studios should pay us to watch them.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39700307)

you are missing the point. the point is to convert "non-paying costumers" (I love mincing words) into paying costumers, not evolving their busniess model isn't going to accomplish that.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

dryriver (1010635) | about 2 years ago | (#39700309)

You don't get the crux of my argument. The Entertainment Industry is trying to shut all these pirate sites down, it seems, in the hope that the "Zero Paying" customers using them will have NO OTHER OPTION LEFT after the fact, than to go buy DVDs/BluRays, or shell out on paid Digital Downloads, or get a Cable/Digital/IP TV subscription. What they don't seem to understand at all, however, is that they may seriously ANGER this category of consumer with their agressive legal actions, and that they will thus potentially alienate 10s of millions of potential paying viewers users from consuming Hollywood/MPAA/RIAA content altogether. Think about it logically for a moment: You take someone's casual P2P/Torrents fun/hobby away from them, and they will do what in return? Run to the nearest entertainment store and buy 5 DVDs/BluRays you published? Call up the cable company and say "Quick! Give me a 60 Dollar/month all-included cable package!" --- That's just not going to happen in my view. If you shut even casual (occasional) P2P/Torrent use down, the people using these services won't want to pay you a dime in return, or contribute to you making greater profits. You'll simply create millions of fervently anti-Hollywood, anti-MPAA, anti-RIAA or anti-BREIN types, who really, really, really hate your industry's guts. --- Also, who do you think camps out on the internet all day, looking for any and all tidbits of info on new movies, and spreading all the positive advance-word-of-mouth about them? As far as I can see, it is the same crowd that casually uses P2P/Torrents. Knee that crowd in the balls, and you'll kill perhaps 75% of the internet-buzz about upcoming movies. You'll put your film teasers/trailers out there, and instead of 25 million people watching them and creating free buzz about them, now there's only 3 - 4 million left, and no significant buzz is created at all. Your movie hits the theatres and tanks at the box-office, because you've totally and completely aliented the movie-freaks who would have promoted your movie to others online.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 2 years ago | (#39702397)

What they don't seem to understand at all, however, is that they may seriously ANGER this category of consumer with their agressive legal actions, and that they will thus potentially alienate 10s of millions of potential paying viewers users from consuming Hollywood/MPAA/RIAA content altogether.

You seem fairly short sighted, even if this worst case scenario happens, the coming generation will not have this once accessible pirate systems, which would translate into more revenues because you've limited the sources where they can get said content.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39704787)

No it won't, because they won't get more money magically appearing. People don't pirate movies and then put their savings into the bank; they spend their money on movies they are sure they will like, and they steal the ones they're on the fence about. If you remove the piracy option, they will still go to the blockbusters and simply do without the rest. This doesn't translate to more revenues because you lose a lot of word-of-mouth, so those people who actually buy a lot of movies won't hear from their pirating friends that the latest film was great. Remember when the Academy Awards featured mostly movies nobody had seen? We'll just be back to that.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 2 years ago | (#39705017)

No it won't, because they won't get more money magically appearing.

I didn't mention money would magically appear.

People don't pirate movies and then put their savings into the bank; they spend their money on movies they are sure they will like, and they steal the ones they're on the fence about.

Your generalization does not apply to all pirates, nor have you even given reasonable sources to confirm that this is even a majority.

If you remove the piracy option, they will still go to the blockbusters and simply do without the rest.

Being someone who has watched DRM work first hand with titles from Egosoft, where piracy required you to disconnect your CDROM in order to work around the DRM (because there was no crack for it at the time) actually caused many in this community that I am familiar with to buy the game instead of deal with the difficulty of pirating. That works against your given information.

This doesn't translate to more revenues because you lose a lot of word-of-mouth, so those people who actually buy a lot of movies won't hear from their pirating friends that the latest film was great.

Egosoft tells me otherwise, when they remove their DRM on their products, they don't seem to see a significant increase in sales, they generally see it on special offers. This could be a case that many people would believe their products to be crap, but then they wouldn't have a zealotry problem with their X series of games then, no?

Remember when the Academy Awards featured mostly movies nobody had seen?

We don't have an "Academy Awards" here.

Anyway, back to the subject, since you missed my point entirely. The new generations won't have any hate towards these industries that terminated piracy because they wouldn't really have experienced their pirating ability taken away from them. In doing so, they'll be less inclined to not buy something on principle or cause problems as you suggest.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (4, Insightful)

sosume (680416) | about 2 years ago | (#39700377)

Downloading anything is perfectly legal in the Netherlands. Do not assume the rest of the world is ruled by companies like in the US, despite this news.

airwaves (2)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | about 2 years ago | (#39700423)

Not too long ago we could download pre-programmed selections over the airwaves. It was called tv. I fail to see much difference between that and TPB, except that the latter is on-demand. Funny how the industry was able to survive on ad revenue from TV but never figured out how to make the transition to the Internet.

Re:airwaves (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#39700693)

The only difference I see is licensing. The over-the-airwaves content is licensed for that - stuff from torrents generally is not.
That said, I believe some European countries have a tax on TVs or the likes to cover over-the-airwaves media (not sure on this, as I live in the US)

Re:airwaves (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | about 2 years ago | (#39702381)

The Netherlands actually had this for a long time, except it was a yearly sum paid by every household that owned a tv or an apparatus that could be used as such.

These days the public channels are just taken out of the big general taxes, and over-the-airwaves media doesn't actually exist anymore.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

kwark (512736) | about 2 years ago | (#39702241)

You are wrong, the exception is computer programs. You need a valid license to duplicate computer programs:

"Artikel 45n
      De artikelen 16b en 16c zijn niet van toepassing op werken
      als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 12."

This article negates 16b and 16c which grant a right to duplicate for cases like (but not limited to) study and personal use:
"Artikel 16b

      1.
                    Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk van letterkunde,
                    wetenschap of kunst wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging
                    welke beperkt blijft tot enkele exemplaren en welke uitsluitend
                    dient tot eigen oefening, studie of gebruik van de natuurlijke
                    persoon die zonder direct of indirect commercieel oogmerk de
                    verveelvoudiging vervaardigt of tot het verveelvoudigen
                    uitsluitend ten behoeve van zichzelf opdracht geeft."

Since computer programs are the works defined in "artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 12":
"12.
                                computerprogramma's en het voorbereidend materiaal;"

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39703223)

Downloading anything is perfectly legal in the Netherlands.

This is not entirely correct (even though in general, only uploaders are prosecuted). All the below has the general IANAL disclaimer, feel free to correct me:

Fair use laws in The Netherlands allow you to own copies for personal use of content you own or have a valid license for. Further, it allows you to have a 3rd party make these copies for you (I believe this was an explicit addendum to the law with the intent to protect professional studios and copyshops). As such, it is conceivably legal to download content to which you own a license. I.e. if you own the CD or DVD you can download a copied version of that content legally, because it is similar to conscripting a 3rd party to make the copy for you.

You are also allowed to record programs broadcasted on TV, provided you have a valid license to receive the broadcast of course. So using this it could perhaps be argued that once something has been broadcasted on a channel you can legally receive, you would be allowed to download it, because you could have copied it from the broadcast and then have someone else make copies of that. I have no idea if such a defense was ever used in court, I highly doubt it, because once again, downloaders are generally not prosecuted.

In P2P cases where everyone is essentially an uploader, 'regular' downloaders again are usually not prosecuted. In this case the tactics of BREIN (the dutch MAFIAA) is to go after the torrent portal sites, which has so far only succeeded for a few sites at a few ISPs. I'm not sure how long they will continue this tactic, but unless they manage to find a way to very quickly add new sites and new ISPs to the injunctions (which is doubtfull) this has not much chance of succeeding. Dozens of new torrent portals were created in the time it took them to block just one.

I am quite certain however that even in The Netherlands it is NOT legal to download the latest Hollywood blockbuster from an American DVD rip before it is even released on DVD on this side of the pond, even though you won't go to jail for it.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (2)

kwark (512736) | about 2 years ago | (#39704709)

"I am quite certain however that even in The Netherlands it is NOT legal to download the latest Hollywood blockbuster from an American DVD rip before it is even released on DVD on this side of the pond, even though you won't go to jail for it."

You are wrong, this is just one of the wrongs in your post:
-if it is legally obtainable _you_ can make a copy. The reason unreleased stuff isn't covered by copyright[*] is the fact that a work has to first be released by the rightful owner to be covered by copyright.
-_YOU_ can make a copy, a third party making a copy is someone making a copy available (distributing), which is against copyright.
-if you own a cd/dvd you are not allowed to break encryption (but only if it is an effective scheme), part of EUCD.
-there are no restrictions to the source being copied, there is no distinction for an illegal source (p2p) of legal source (tv broadcasts).

Please actually read the damned thing before making such comments.

*:
%s/copyright/auteursrecht/g
copyright is the wrong name for the law, it is not about the right to copy but summation of rights of the owner of its works. It also describes situations that aren't infringements on the owners rights (such as making copies for striclt personal use or education).

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (2)

lorenlal (164133) | about 2 years ago | (#39700485)

Actually, they should be. Because those thieves often pay for things that support the people who hold up the *AAs... They attend concerts, buy memorabilia and swag and act as walking advertisements for the artists who create the product the AAs spend so much time and money protecting.

I don't mind that they protect the content. I *do* care they they have bought and paid for a system that operates in a "guilty until proven innocent" system where all they have to do is *accuse* someone of being a thief or being an accomplice to thieving to get what they want. The AAs can start legal action and sue the *downloaders* all they want, and that's perfectly allowable, legal, and nobody will complain... But when they can force entire domains offline because someone posts a link to some content without having to get so much as a warrant, that's over the line. That's why it's a problem.

But, I guess we'll see. Some artists have embraced the new world of digital distribution. Let's see how they do.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#39700701)

...I don't mind that they protect the content. I *do* care they they have bought and paid for a system that operates in a "guilty until proven innocent" system where all they have to do is *accuse* someone of being a thief or being an accomplice to thieving to get what they want. The AAs can start legal action and sue the *downloaders* all they want, and that's perfectly allowable, legal, and nobody will complain... But when they can force entire domains offline because someone posts a link to some content without having to get so much as a warrant, that's over the line. That's why it's a problem.

But, I guess we'll see. Some artists have embraced the new world of digital distribution. Let's see how they do.

I agree that the approach to resolution is a problem. This "issue" is a river with a broken dam, flowing out of control. *AA sees it as a river with all their profits spilling out everywhere. So they send 100 people to fix the dam and plug ALL the leaks. The problem is 85% of those people have absolutely NO experience building or repairing dams, so needless to say, you're going to some "let's just nuke it and vaporize all the water!" ideas coming forth.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 2 years ago | (#39702433)

Actually, they should be. Because those thieves often pay for things that support the people who hold up the *AAs... They attend concerts, buy memorabilia and swag and act as walking advertisements for the artists who create the product the AAs spend so much time and money protecting.

Knowing a good amount of individuals who pirate content, I don't know where you're getting this from. I guess pirates where you're from are 'better' in that sense, but this certainly does not apply to all pirates.

Torrent users are not thieves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39700487)

Even if you don't want to mince words. Putting that in bold (veeery smart, you are technologically capable, hein?) doesn't make it more true either.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (0)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39700821)

Oh, so you mean that somehow the RIAA/MPAA should be concerned about the thieves (not even gonna try and mince words here)

You just did. Theft deprives someone of their property, copyright infringement does not. Shoplifting a CD is stealing music, taking a file that someone else paid for and shared is not. Rather than "mincing words" you're choosing incorrect and inflammatory terminology. When you have to resort to that, your argument is an automatic failure.

All hands on deck for an emergency board meeting to discuss how we're going to deal with "customers" who weren't paying a dime before that are not going to pay a dime in the future...

Research says that pirates are the media companies' best customers, spending far more money than non-pirates. Piracy sells media.

Which is exactly why the MAFIAA hates file sharing -- it benefits the indies. Thanks to cheap recording and the internet, musicians no longer need the RIAA labels, and neither do their customers. The RIAA has radio, indie bands do not.

The MPAA must be shaking in its boots after Star Wreck - In The Pirkinning came out. The "music industry" is no longer needed, and it won't be long before the "movie industry" suffers the same fate.

I torrent all the time. Linux distros, indie music, my own book.

Get a clue.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#39701665)

You just did. Theft deprives someone of their property, copyright infringement does not. Shoplifting a CD is stealing music, taking a file that someone else paid for and shared is not. Rather than "mincing words" you're choosing incorrect and inflammatory terminology. When you have to resort to that, your argument is an automatic failure.

So, we're going to split hairs over what is construed as "theft" while using terms like "pirate"? Pointless argument is pointless. I'm sure that the "someone else paid for it" defense works really well against Microsoft when pirating (sorry, I meant sharing) 150 copies of Microsoft Office around the company after buying just one. Theft is the term is use because that is how the *AA sees it. Regardless of whether people want to try and legally spin it as "copyright infringement", or "breach of licensing contract", it's all a form of theft, especially if the end result is someone gaining something of tangible value for free.

Research says that pirates are the media companies' best customers, spending far more money than non-pirates. Piracy sells media.

Which is exactly why the MAFIAA hates file sharing -- it benefits the indies. Thanks to cheap recording and the internet, musicians no longer need the RIAA labels, and neither do their customers. The RIAA has radio, indie bands do not.

The MPAA must be shaking in its boots after Star Wreck - In The Pirkinning came out. The "music industry" is no longer needed, and it won't be long before the "movie industry" suffers the same fate.

I torrent all the time. Linux distros, indie music, my own book.

Get a clue.

The overall impact is what is really the question here. And as we stand here debating who is "shaking in their boots" while watching the #1 movie in theatres surpass $300 million in sales, seems that those who "torrent all the time" have little impact on the big picture. This would certainly question the *AA's overall motives, especially if the statistics are accurate regarding pirates bringing profits, not losses. That being said, It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than a iMovie and YouTube to keep people from wanting to pay for the next cyber-apocolypse-zombie-vampire movie....split into 7 highly-profitable parts.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#39702223)

So, we're going to split hairs over what is construed as "theft" while using terms like "pirate"?

It's hardly splitting hairs. Practical demonstration:

I STEAL your house and everything in it: You end up shivering in the rain.

I COPY your house and everything in it: You don't notice.

Do those sound practically the same to you?

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#39702587)

So, we're going to split hairs over what is construed as "theft" while using terms like "pirate"?

It's hardly splitting hairs. Practical demonstration:

I STEAL your house and everything in it: You end up shivering in the rain.

I COPY your house and everything in it: You don't notice.

Do those sound practically the same to you?

Yes, that sounds as practical as it sounds viable in the real world. I grow tired of seeing this example really.

And no, the homeowner would likely not notice, at least initially. However, the homebuilder, and every company that supports them, would notice, especially if someone decided to "COPY" said house a few million times over and then sell them at 1/4th the "legitimate" price, or even give them away for free. And then the homeowner will eventually notice when he sees he paid 4x more than his neighbor with a "COPY" of his house.

This is more pointing out the differences between direct vs. indirect impact of theft, but the underlying offense is the same when discussing items of tangible value.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#39702691)

Seems someone (a lot of someones) have slaughtered your sacred cow.

If you bought your house during the bubble and I buy the house next door now, I might well pay only 1/4th as much, does that mean you'll decide I somehow stole from you?

What exactly did you lose because of my actions?

Copyright violation may or may not be wrong, but it is certainly not theft. It is a distinct thing. Otherwise we could just call both or them marklar.

So, marklar marklar marklar, marklar marklar marklar! Marklar?

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#39703081)

Seems someone (a lot of someones) have slaughtered your sacred cow.

If you bought your house during the bubble and I buy the house next door now, I might well pay only 1/4th as much, does that mean you'll decide I somehow stole from you?

What exactly did you lose because of my actions?

Apples to oranges. You're now trying to compare a completely legitimate financial transaction that is known to ALL parties involved as to perceived value against someone stealing (or copying) your property to obtain for free or resell for ill-gained profit.

And to answer your suspicions, no there was no slaughter involved, as I purchased prior to the bubble. Doesn't mean I'm NOT going to call those responsible for the financial meltdown anything other than thieves, regardless of what the court docket might (eventually) state.

Copyright violation may or may not be wrong, but it is certainly not theft. It is a distinct thing. Otherwise we could just call both or them marklar.

So, marklar marklar marklar, marklar marklar marklar! Marklar?

Fine. Ask the person standing in the unemployment line who just got laid off due to excessive "marklar" against the company he used to work for if he sees it as somehow not theft, as his very livelihood was stolen from him.

Arguing about the semantics of legal terms does nothing when the end result is the same, and the verbiage on those Interpol warnings hasn't changed much since people started stealing shit by pressing the "innocent" COPY button with VHS movies back in the day. What makes this particular discussion here difficult is watching *AA's rake in millions in profits while listening to them cry "victim" to piracy against statistics that show otherwise.

And "Copyright violation" vs. "Copyright theft"...talk about mincing words. C'mon now, what do you think infringement means, especially when dictated by copyright law that you are entitled to collect for losses/damages as a result of said "marklar"...

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39703387)

I'm confused. When you call it "theft," what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Like it or not, you've basically just stopped any meaningful discussion. Certain people will react to that, and you'll get caught in a battle of semantics (like you are now). Worse still, you did it on purpose, but then pretend that you don't want to argue over semantics. Now, why would you do that?

Arguing about the semantics of legal terms does nothing when the end result is the same

Many things could be considered pointless. But still, people do them. Like making comments on Slashdot, for instance.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#39703535)

I'm confused. When you call it "theft," what exactly are you trying to accomplish?

Ah, when you call it "violation", what exactly are you trying to accomplish? I'm merely pointing out the actual crime being committed in the background, while everyone else wants to dance around and continue to use generic terms like "violation". A lawyer does not walk into a courtroom and state that the defendant is innocent of "crime" and continue to refer to the criminal activities as such. Eventually, the judge is going to want to know exactly what the hell you mean by "crime".

But enough is enough. I'm certainly not going to continue to find common sense within the legal system.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (2)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#39704395)

Fine. Ask the person standing in the unemployment line who just got laid off due to excessive "marklar" against the company he used to work for if he sees it as somehow not theft, as his very livelihood was stolen from him.

THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!

Ask the guy laid off so the board could save a few bucks and he'll say they stole his livlihood, ready to jail them for their theft?

We can just call it all theft. Jay walking = theft of right of way. Murder = theft of life, littering = theft of cleanliness, disturbing the peace = theft of quiet, law enforcement = theft of theft.

Copyright infringement is what most people do. They make a copy for themselves without authorization. Copyright theft is what the *AA and company do, wrongfully claiming to own copyright on someone else's works (especially on youtube).

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

jeti (105266) | about 2 years ago | (#39700257)

What if it's not about raking in a few more nickels in the short term? The means to record, edit and and publish both music and video of good quality are now available to mere hobbyists. If the publishers can no longer control the outlets, their importance will dwindle. At least over in Germany, we're already seeing movies that were crowd-sourced or created by hobbyists on the big screens of movie theaters.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39700287)

That's one side of it, the other mistake they are making is that the younger generation sees them as their ENEMY!

Copyright is a dirty word. Copyright enforcement even dirtier. How about the term "Copyright Industry"? If you'd used that in the 1980s, people would have gone "what?"

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#39700791)

But what about the people who really used to love using Torrents and such? They will very likely stop consuming Hollywood movies/U.S. TV Shows/MPAA-RIAA content altogether. Can you live without consuming this stuff at all? Yes, you very much can. Do you miss out on anything doing this? Only if you are a 14 year old teenager who thinks that to be "hip" or "in the loop", you need to see the latest incarnation of the Hollywood trash all your friends at school are talking about.

Oh bullshit. Of all the things I could have been reading or watching or listening or playing games or doing some hobby or going somewhere or doing something I decided to sit down to watch that show. And I didn't just hit the "on" switch to gaze at whatever is on either, I specifically went online and got that show. Do I need it? Hell no, it's entertainment but I don't strictly speaking need most of the things in my life. You're just trying to belittle everyone that watches anything mainstream claiming they're only watching this turd because it's free. Your attitude is exactly the same as those old farts that didn't like how their kids were listening to this rock&roll trash. Sometimes my tastes are narrow, but if a fantasy-move like Lord of the Rings is a mainstream hit I don't have to hate it to be the art snob. I like some of that shit, so sue me.

However, the days when I would adjust my life to the TV schedule or even to physically be at the TV is long gone. If I want it out on my TV, my computer in a window while I do something else, my tablet, my phone, my media server for everything in the house, at a cabin, in a car player, whatever I want it to be up to me where and when I watch it. There was a time when we could time- and format-shift it, but they tried to make it go away. On top of that they want to surveillance everything I do to make sure there's none of their holy bits inside, and I don't like that one bit. I don't like being puppeteered in my own, stop selling me things with strings attached. It was yours, now it's mine, go away and let me do with it as I please. I'd vote Pirate Party any day and I'd still try to fund stuff I like, I know gratitude doesn't put food on the table.

Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (1)

Elbereth (58257) | about 2 years ago | (#39700799)

Instead of pioneering new, convenient, usable digital ways to distribute content (like free, ad-supported internet streaming of standard-def content over, say, Youtube or Vimeo), the Entertainment industry seems determined to forcibly shut down any alternative, ad-hoc digital distribution means that has sprung up (like P2P & Torrents).

What about Hulu, Crackle, Vevo, etc? Aren't those exactly what you're asking for?

Will the industry's sales and profits suddenly go up? Perhaps by a measly few percent (say 2 - 4%), as some of the people who used to get stuff free off the internet now grudgingly head to the entertainment store to buy a DVD or BluRay instead, or buy a few movies/shows on iTunes-like online services.

I think you're pulling numbers out of your ass.

The generation that grew up with P2P and Torrents will probably hate Hollywood/MPAA/RIAA for the rest of their lives, and likely consume as little Hollywood/U.S. made content as possible. It will probably do this just to hurt the MPAA/RIAA back.

That's possible, but I doubt it. Just talk to a few random people, and you'll find that you share absolutely nothing in common in them. They don't give a shit about your concerns, and you probably don't give a shit about their concerns. My sister is one of those anti-vaccine, pro-organic people. She loves Apple and all of her iProducts. If you listen to her, all of the world's problems revolve around Monsanto, vaccines, and Windows PCs. She doesn't give a shit about patent trolls, DRM, Sony rootkits, or open source. Do you really think my sister is going to give a shit about your beef with the MPAA or RIAA?

Makes me weep to be an American... (5, Insightful)

Covalent (1001277) | about 2 years ago | (#39700053)

If only we were able to have an organized party like this in the U.S.

Our only choices are "In the pocket of the MPAA" and "In the pocket of the MPAA"...oh, wait...

Re:Makes me weep to be an American... (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 2 years ago | (#39700225)

Anyone know the green and libertarian party policies on these issues?

Re:Makes me weep to be an American... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39702375)

That's a very good point. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that the Constitution Party (also on enough ballots to win the last Presidential election) would probably be for copyright reform.

I can't vote for them amy more than the asses and elephants, though, becaus eof their stance on drugs. Someone you love smokes pot and you're going to vote for someone who wants your loved ones in jail? I'll stick to the Greens and Libbies until we get a viable Pirate Party.

Re:Makes me weep to be an American... (1)

ironman_one (520863) | about 2 years ago | (#39700449)

Sorry bu no: http://us.pirate.is/ [pirate.is] Its only a illusion that you only have two choices.

Re:Makes me weep to be an American... (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | about 2 years ago | (#39703209)

Tell me that when I can vote for them. I can't even write in my vote anymore for who I want, but I'm forced to chose someone who is already on the ballet and the two main parties make that extremely hard past local office.

Re:Makes me weep to be an American... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39700557)

If only we were able to have an organized party like this in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Pirate_Party

I'd link to the site direct, but they seem to be having a server migration today

mod UP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39700953)

to work I'm doing, use the sling. WELL-KNOWN Fueling internal Lay down paper discussions on seesion and join in profits without Fucking percent of a popular 'news

Blockade is useless anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39701431)

This demand from BREIN comes hot on the heels of a University of Amsterdam research [www.uva.nl] (in Dutch) which shows that the blocking the Pirate Bay URL and IPs on certain ISPs has no noticeable effect on torrent downloading activities. Taking down proxies is probably not going to make much of a dent in that either.

Blockade is useless anyway (4, Interesting)

Neelix21 (143043) | about 2 years ago | (#39701469)

This demand from BREIN comes hot on the heels of a University of Amsterdam research [www.uva.nl] (in Dutch) which shows that the blocking the Pirate Bay URL and IPs on certain ISPs has no noticeable effect on torrent downloading activities. Taking down proxies is probably not going to make much of a dent in that either.

Re:Blockade is useless anyway (2)

funtapaz (1406785) | about 2 years ago | (#39701851)

The pirate bay is serving as an excellent distraction. Governments obsess over it, while thousands of other sites continue business as usual. The longer the pirate bay is at the forefront, the longer we have access to everything else.

Re:Blockade is useless anyway (1)

NeverSuchBefore (2613927) | about 2 years ago | (#39703469)

Even if it was shut down, they couldn't ever shut everything else down. There's simply too many websites. I guess they could shut down a few more websites if they eliminated all due process (which is, of course, a terrible idea, but not above them), but they still wouldn't get very far.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...